add a checklist guide for moderators to use #1
Conversation
ryantm
commented
Feb 23, 2023
ryantm
commented
- adds first checklist for suspending someone
* adds first checklist for suspending someone
| # Checklists | ||
|
|
||
| ## Suspending Someone | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The most important thing to do is to write to that person and tell them:
- Why did they get suspended? What expectation did we have that they didn't meet?
- What are the next steps for them; eg they can come back in 30 days
Most suspensions come as a shock to the user, and it takes time for them to process. We should strive to reduce that and set clear expectations and guidelines for them.
Given that all the rest happens in secrecy, this is also the only mechanism we have to keep our team accountable.
We could add a suspension template to this email to simplify that process.
| 4. Remove inappropriate content | ||
| 5. Add entry to moderation-log.md | ||
| - Include the length of the suspension, if not indefinite | ||
| - Do __not__ include why the suspension was issued |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could include the broader category as a reason. Everybody can have a bad day or can fucks up from time to time, it doesn't have to be a big deal to get suspended.
| - Do __not__ include why the suspension was issued | ||
|
|
||
| ### Indefinite Suspensions | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same, send an email. Even if the person is behaving badly, we should still treat them with respect (even if it's really hard).
| - Include the length of the suspension, if not indefinite | ||
| - Do __not__ include why the suspension was issued | ||
|
|
||
| ### Indefinite Suspensions |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indefinite suspensions should only happen if we have a quorum in the moderation team.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That does not align with the most recent harassment case by a troll. We had no clear quorum, because that would've taken too long.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see these as two distinctive things:
- Moderation intervention: when things are live, the moderation team makes judgement calls. This is what we did to handle the situation and it is necessary.
- Moderation decision: once the event is over, ideally, the rest of the team would review the judgement calls, and then decide if the ban is temporary or permanent. The main benefit is that this would help improve the quality of the moderation service. Even today, we can see a few things not working out.
That being said, in today's case the user was clearly a troll. What I had mostly in mind is if an existing community member gets banned, as it happened in the past. In that case, it's important to me that we handle this with as much care as possible. We try mediation and spend more time explaining to that user what communication standards we have before wielding the ban hammer.
|
|
||
| 1. Remove from Nixpkgs maintainers list and remove their maintainership of all packages | ||
| 2. Remove from NixOS org maintainer list and any other NixOS org permissions | ||
| 3. Notify major adjacent project administrators in case they also want to take action: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it also make sense to close all the person's unmerged PRs? It has already been done in practice.
| 3. Notify major adjacent project administrators in case they also want to take action: | |
| 3. Close all open PRs by that person, noting the indefinite suspension | |
| 4. Notify major adjacent project administrators in case they also want to take action: |
